|
Author
|
Topic: Tank Busting Aircraft at Kursk
|
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 09-01-2002 04:20 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
I too find it difficult to believe in the 12 kills in this instance, but also his "score" of 500+ for hte entire war. I am of course speculating here, but I believe that Wittman probably destroyed more tanks than Rudel. It would surprise me if one is not forced to knock off at least three quarters or more of Rudels claims. In any case, it would be good to have some specific events to check against Soviet primary sources. The bruno Meyer event certainly suggest that it would be possible, given sufficiently detailed data on where and when Rudel was supposed to have "scored".
You said in your kursk book that the ger reduced air craft tank kills by 50% from proven claims for planning puposes. If not for the entire war at least for a substantial part of it later on when the ger had real tank buster around and lots of sov an western tanks to use them on. A reduction of 500 to 250 would not seem inappropriate. When you remember just how few tanks were killed by aircraft even at the best of times for a/c you might think a further reduction would be needed. But the ger forces seemed much better at claiming all manner of losses then the western forces. I wouldnLt expect horribly bloated claims here as well. The other reason I wouldnLt expect the ger tank claims by a/c is the huge number of sov tanks and the small number ger specialist tank busting a/c. The sovs lost roughly 100,000 tanks and even if only 5% were due to ac that makes 5000 tanks here plus more in the west and africa. Even if the ger had an avg of 100 operational TB planes that would be 50 each. Although the ger had more than just TB planes they probably would have been the source of most tank claims.
A bit of food for thought.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 09-02-2002 02:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Darrin:
You said in your kursk book that the ger reduced air craft tank kills by 50% from proven claims for planning puposes.
The OKH used such a rule of thumb. It also used (usually) a 30 % reduction of ground forces claims. This procedure enable the German high command to arrive at overall Soviet losses that were quite close to Soviet losses (complete write-offs) as they are presented by post-1990 Russian publications. However, as less than 10 % of all claims were made by air units, it is difficult to tell whether the 50 % "rule of thumb for air claims" was good or not. Since the air units claims were so small they have little influence on the overall accuracy of OKH figures, regardless of whether they were realistic or wildly exaggerated.
In any case, Rudel's 500+ "victims" have not been subjected to the OKH reduction.[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 09-02-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 09-02-2002 07:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darrin:
[b]
You said in your kursk book that the ger reduced air craft tank kills by 50% from proven claims for planning puposes.
The OKH used such a rule of thumb. It also used (usually) a 30 % reduction of ground forces claims. This procedure enable the German high command to arrive at overall Soviet losses that were quite close to Soviet losses (complete write-offs) as they are presented by post-1990 Russian publications. However, as less than 10 % of all claims were made by air units, it is difficult to tell whether the 50 % "rule of thumb for air claims" was good or not. Since the air units claims were so small they have little influence on the overall accuracy of OKH figures, regardless of whether they were realistic or wildly exaggerated.
In any case, Rudel's 500+ "victims" have not been subjected to the OKH reduction.[This message has been edited by Niklas Zetterling (edited 09-02-2002).][/B][/QUOTE]
Less than 10% does not appear to suggest huge overclaiming by ac. In relation to the rest of the ger army or in relation to the number of tanks known/persumed lost to ac power.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 09-03-2002 01:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Darrin:
Less than 10% does not appear to suggest huge overclaiming by ac. In relation to the rest of the ger army or in relation to the number of tanks known/persumed lost to ac power.
That depends of course on the ercentage we expect to be kills from the air. Currently we have very little data that is good enough to support an conclusions on the number of tanks destroyed from the air on the eastern front. To me it seems just as likely that 1 % of all Soviet tanks that were destroyed fell victim to German air power as 5 % would do. We have so little reliable data (what Chris has presented on the "Bruno Meyer case" has to be regarded as exceptionally good. Also we have a report published in the TNDM Newsletter, showing the losses of the Soviet 1st Tank Army during Zitadelle, where losses to air were indicated (just could not find the report at the moment).
However, overall we have little reliable data. I don't think there is much reason to assme that around 10 % of all destroyed Soviet tanks were victims to the Luftwaffe.
IP: Logged |
Darrin
Senior Member
|
posted 09-03-2002 07:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Niklas Zetterling:
That depends of course on the ercentage we expect to be kills from the air. Currently we have very little data that is good enough to support an conclusions on the number of tanks destroyed from the air on the eastern front. To me it seems just as likely that 1 % of all Soviet tanks that were destroyed fell victim to German air power as 5 % would do. We have so little reliable data (what Chris has presented on the "Bruno Meyer case" has to be regarded as exceptionally good. Also we have a report published in the TNDM Newsletter, showing the losses of the Soviet 1st Tank Army during Zitadelle, where losses to air were indicated (just could not find the report at the moment).
However, overall we have little reliable data. I don't think there is much reason to assme that around 10 % of all destroyed Soviet tanks were victims to the Luftwaffe.
In your normandy book you point out that 2-5% of sov tanks in one study at kursk were destroyed by air. While 5% or less might be more realistic for the first half of the war. At kursk itself thier were few real ger TBs they became more common latter in the war when the the relative % may have rasied because of this. In the west in 44 although it was a different situation roughly 7% of all ger tanks examined fell due to air attacks.
On the other hand I would agree that claims by ground units would be closer to the truth then claims by thier respective air units. An unequal reduction like the ger used earlier in the war would probably be more accurate and realistic.
IP: Logged |
Niklas Zetterling
Senior Member
|
posted 09-03-2002 10:09 AM
If we judge from the data on Normandy and the Ardennes, we can say that claims were about 10 times above reality. If German air crews were only 2 times off reality, then the performed substantially better in this respect. However, this is something that would warrant an explanation. Perhaps they did report more accurately, but 5 times better seems a little bit hard to swallow.
In any case, the shortage of hard data will make our assumption close to specuation.
IP: Logged |
Dan Stevlingson
Senior Member
|
posted 09-12-2002 06:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
The Bruno Meyer Story Expanded
Over the years, an expanded version of this story has appeared, I gather first from a German source that I have not identified.
Sorry for the late reply. Been busy and havent been able to visit for a while. I found a few documents cited in the bibliography of Focke-Wulf FW 190: Workhorse of the Luftwaffe by Jay P. Spenser Meyer, Bruno. Einsatz von Schlachtfliegeren
[Operation of ground attack pilots]
Ref. K113.3019-3.
HQ, USAF Historical Research Center,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama, March 24, 1953. Kupfer, Ernst. Schlachtflieger, Panzerjagd und Storflugzeuge
in Jahre 1943 [Ground attack, antitank and nuisance aircraft
in the year of 1943].
Transcript of speech. Ref. K113.3019-3.
HQ, USAF Historical Research Center,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama, September 10, 1943. Maass, General. Die dem Heer im Kriege taktisch unterstellen
Verbande der Luftwaffe [German Air Force units tactically subordinate
to the army in war].
Ref. K113.836.
HQ, USAF Historical Research Center,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama, September 13, 1956. Hitschold, Hubertus. Die Schlacht fliegerei in der Deutschen
Luftwaffe. [Ground attack in the German Air Force]
Ref. K113.3019-3.
HQ, USAF Historical Research Center,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama, February 12, 1957. Galland, Adolf, and Hitschold, Hubertus. Entwicklung der
Schlachtflieger. [Development of ground attack]
Historical Analysis. Ref. K113.3019-3.
HQ, USAF Historical Research Center,
Maxwell AFB, Alabama, February 1, 1957. quote:
Originally posted by Chris Lawrence:
There is reason to wonder about Rudel's claim of 12 tanks killed..
Jay Spenser wrote the following remarks about Rudel on pg.99: An interesting view of Rudel is presented by former SG2 pilot Fritz Seyffardt (see Chapter 3). In a letter to the author dated November 19, 1985, Seyffardt recalls his former commander
as having been an Einzelkampfer (individual fighter) unsuited to command of a large unit. His postwar activities and unrepentant views were seen as false by Seyffardt, who adds that he and other former pilots regarded their late Kommandeur as politically naive and childish -- [This message has been edited by Dan Stevlingson (edited 09-14-2002).]
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 09-12-2002 07:40 AM
quote:
Sorry for the late reply.
Well, this is not always the busiest of sites, thanks for responding. I did post the Stuka question up on the Luftwaffe 1933-45 board and got one response. quote:
I found a few documents cited in the bibliography of Focke-Wulf FW 190: Workhorse of the Luftwaffe by Jay P. Spenser...HQ, USAF Historical Research Center, Maxwell AFB, Alabama,
I think I can get all those across the river at Bolling. Thanks, that is very useful. Just when I thought I was about done with this damn book. quote:
Jay Spenser wrote the following remarks about Rudel on pg.99:...he and other former pilots regarded their late Kommandeur as politically naive and childish
"Naive and childish" I believe would describe many of that ilk, both back then, and their admirers of today.
IP: Logged |
Tero
Senior Member
|
posted 03-14-2007 02:28 PM
The data shows the Soviet infantry had Bren carriers. What was their SOP using them and how many (if any) did they lose to enemy action in that engagement ?[This message has been edited by Tero (edited 03-14-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Chris Lawrence
Moderator
|
posted 10-03-2015 05:53 PM
It turns out that this thread is also linked to someone's article on the internet: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/ [This message has been edited by Chris Lawrence (edited 10-03-2015).]
IP: Logged | |
The Dupuy Institute Forum
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
